Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

A Formal Framework for Viewpoint Consistency

  • Published:
Formal Methods in System Design Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Multiple Viewpoint models of system development are becoming increasingly important. Each viewpoint offers a different perspective on the target system and system development involves parallel refinement of the multiple views. Viewpoints related approaches have been considered in a number of different guises by a spectrum of researchers. Our work particularly focuses on the use of viewpoints in Open Distributed Processing (ODP) which is an ISO/ITU standardisation framework. The requirements of viewpoints modelling in ODP are very broad and, hence, demanding. Multiple viewpoints, though, prompt the issue of consistency between viewpoints. This paper describes a very general interpretation of consistency which we argue is broad enough to meet the requirements of consistency in ODP. We present a formal framework for this general interpretation; highlight basic properties of the interpretation and locate restricted classes of consistency. Strategies for checking consistency are also investigated. Throughout we illustrate our theory using the formal description technique LOTOS. Thus, the paper also characterises the nature of and options for consistency checking in LOTOS.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. M. Ainsworth, A.H. Cruickshank, L.J. Groves, and P.J.L. Wallis, “Formal specification via viewpoints,” in J. Hosking (Ed.), Proc. 13th New Zealand Computer Conference, New Zealand Computer Society, Auckland, New Zealand, 1993, pp. 218–237.

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. Ainsworth, A.H. Cruickshank, L.J. Groves, and P.J.L. Wallis, “Viewpoint specification and Z,” Information and Software Technology, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 43–51, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  3. M. Ainsworth and P.J.L. Wallis, “Co-refinement,” in D. Till (Ed.), Proc. 6th Refinement Workshop, City University, London, 1994, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  4. E. Boiten, H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M. Steen, “Cross viewpoint consistency in open distributed processing (intra language consistency),” Technical Report 8–95, Computing Laboratory, University of Kent at Canterbury, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  5. E. Boiten, H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M. Steen, “Viewpoint consistency in Z and LOTOS: A case study,” in J. Fitzgerald, C.B. Jones, and P. Lucas (Eds.), Formal Methods Europe (FME '97), Vol. 1313 LNCS, Graz, Austria, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1997, pp. 644–664.

    Google Scholar 

  6. E. Boiten, J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M. Steen, “Consistency and refinement for partial specification in Z,” in M.-C. Gaudel and J. Woodcock (Eds.), FME'96: Industrial Benefit of Formal Methods, Third International Symposium of Formal Methods Europe, Vol. 1051 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1996, pp. 287–306.

    Google Scholar 

  7. T. Bolognesi and E. Brinksma, “Introduction to the ISO Specification Language LOTOS,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 25–59, 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  8. G. Booch, Object-Oriented Analysis and Design, The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing, 1994.

  9. G. Booch, J. Rumbaugh, and I. Jacobson, Unified Modeling Language, Rational Software Corporation, 1997.

  10. H. Bowman, E.A. Boiten, J. Derrick, and M.W.A. Steen, “Viewpoint consistency in ODP, a general interpretation,” in First IFIP InternationalWorkshop on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, Chapman and Hall, Paris, 1996, pp. 189–204.

    Google Scholar 

  11. H. Bowman, E.A. Boiten, J. Derrick, and M.W.A. Steen, “Strategies for consistency checking based on unification,” Science of Computer Programming, Vol. 33, pp. 261–298, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  12. H. Bowman, C. Briscoe-Smith, J. Derrick, and B. Strulo, “Onbehavioural subtyping inLOTOS,” in H. Bowman and J. Derrick (Eds.), FMOODS'97, 2nd IFIP Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object Based Distributed Systems, Chapman and Hall, 1997, pp. 335–351.

  13. H. Bowman and J. Derrick, “A junction between state based and behavioural specification,” in A. Fantechi, P. Ciancarini, and R. Gorrieri (Eds.), FMOODS'99, 3rd IFIP Conference on Formal Methods for Open Object Based Distributed Systems, Kluwer, 1999, pp. 213–239.

  14. H. Bowman, J. Derrick, P. Linington, and M.W.A. Steen, “FDTs for ODP,” Computer Standards and Interfaces, Vol. 17, pp. 457–479, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  15. H. Bowman, J. Derrick, P.F. Linington, and M.W.A. Steen, “Cross viewpoint consistency in Open Distributed Processing,” in A. Finkelstein and I. Sommerville (Eds.), IEE Software Engineering Journal, Special Issue on Viewpoints, Vol. 11, No. 1, pp. 44–57, 1996.

  16. H. Bowman, J. Derrick, and M.W.A. Steen, “Some results on cross viewpoint consistency checking,” in K. Raymond and L. Armstrong (Eds.), IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, Chapman and Hall, Brisbane, Australia, 1995, pp. 399–412.

    Google Scholar 

  17. E. Brinksma, “What is the method in formal methods,” in K.R. Parker and G.A. Rose (Eds.), FORTE'91, Formal Description Techniques, IV, North-Holland, Sydney, Australia, 1992, pp. 33–50.

    Google Scholar 

  18. E. Brinksma and G. Scollo, “Formal notions of implementation and conformance in LOTOS,” Technical Report INF–86–13, Dept. of Informatics, Twente University of Technology, 1986.

  19. E. Brinksma, G. Scollo, and C. Steenbergen, “Process specification, their implementation and their tests,” in B. Sarikaya and G.V. Bochmann (Eds.), Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, VI, North-Holland, Montreal, Canada, 1986, pp. 349–360.

    Google Scholar 

  20. G. Cowen, J. Derrick, M. Gill, and G. Girling, “Prost report of the study on testing for open distributed processing” in A. Herbert, P.F. Linington, D. Rayner, F. Schulz, and R. Soley (Eds.), APM Ltd., 1993.

  21. J. Derrick, E.A. Boiten, H. Bowman, and M. Steen, “Supporting ODP-translating LOTOS to Z,” in First IFIP International workshop on Formal Methods for Open Object-Based Distributed Systems, Chapman and Hall, Paris, 1996, pp. 399–406.

    Google Scholar 

  22. J. Derrick, E.A. Boiten, H. Bowman, and M. Steen, “Translating LOTOS to object-Z,” in D.J. Duke and A.S. Evans (Eds.), Northern Formal MethodsWorkshop,Vol. 2nd BCS-FACS Northern Formal MethodsWorkshop of Workshops in Computing, Springer-Verlag, 1997.

  23. J. Derrick, E.A. Boiten, H. Bowman, and M. Steen, “Viewpoints and consistency: Translating LOTOS to object-Z,” Computer Standards and Interfaces, Vol. 21, pp. 251–272, 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  24. J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M. Steen, “Maintaining cross viewpoint consistency using Z,” in K. Raymond and L. Armstrong (Eds.), IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, Chapman and Hall, Brisbane, Australia, 1995, pp. 413–424.

    Google Scholar 

  25. J. Derrick, H. Bowman, and M. Steen, “Viewpoints and objects,” in Ninth Annual Z User Workshop, Lecture Notes in Computer Science 967, Springer-Verlag, Limerick, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  26. J. Fiadeiro and T. Maibaum, “Temporal theories as modularisation units for concurrent system specification,” Formal Aspects of Computing, Vol. 4, pp. 239–272, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  27. A. Finkelstein, J. Kramer, B. Nuseibeh, L. Finkelstein, and M. Goedicke, “Viewpoints: A framework for integrating multiple perspectives in system development,” International Journal on Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, Special issue on Trends and Research Directions in Software Engineering Environments, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 31–58, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  28. J. Goguen and R. Burstall, “Introducing institutions,” in E. Clarke and D. Kozen (Eds.), Proceedings Logics of Programming Workshop, Vol. 164 of Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1984, pp. 221–256.

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Hennessy, Algebraic Theory of Processes, MIT Press, 1988.

  30. C.A.R. Hoare, Communicating Sequential Processes, Prentice Hall, 1985.

  31. H. Ichikawa, K. Yamanaka, and J. Kato, “Incremental specification in LOTOS,” in L. Logrippo, R.L. Probert, and H. Ural (Eds.), Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification X, Ottawa, Canada, 1990, pp. 183–196.

  32. ISO, Information processing systems—Open systems interconnection—Basic reference model, 1984, IS 7498.

  33. ISO, Information processing systems—Open systems interconnection—LOTOS—A formal description technique based on the temporal ordering of observational behaviour, 1989, IS 8807.

  34. ISO, LOTOS description of the Session Protocol, 1989, ISO/IEC TR9572.

  35. ISO, LOTOS description of the Session Service, 1989, ISO/IEC TR9571.

  36. ITU Recommendation X.901—904—ISO/IEC 10746 1—4, Open Distributed Processing—Reference Model— Parts 1—4, July 1995.

  37. D. Jackson, “Structuring Z specifications with views,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 365–389, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  38. F. Khendek and G. von Bochmann, “Merging specification behaviours,” Technical Report 856, Departement d'informatique et de recherche operationnelle, Universite de Montreal, 1993.

  39. G. Kiczales, J. Lamping, A. Mendhekar, C. Maeda, C. Lopes, J.-M. Loingtier, and J. Irwin, “Aspect-oriented programming,” Technical Report SPL97–008 P9710042, PARC, 1997.

  40. K.G. Larsen, B. Steffen, and C. Weise, “A constraint oriented proof methodology based on modal transition systems,” Technical Report RS–94–47, University of Aarhus, 1994.

  41. G. Leduc, “On the role of implementation relations in the design of distributed systems using LOTOS,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Liège, Liège, Belgium, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  42. G. Leduc, “A framework based on implementation relations for implementing LOTOS specifications,” Computer Networks and ISDN Systems, Vol. 25, pp. 23–41, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  43. P.F. Linington, “RM-ODP: The architecture,” in K. Raymond and L. Armstrong (Eds.), IFIP TC6 International Conference on Open Distributed Processing, Chapman and Hall, Brisbane, Australia, 1995, pp. 15–33.

    Google Scholar 

  44. J. Loeckx and K. Sieber, The Foundations of Program Verification, Wiley, 1984.

  45. R. Milner, Communication and Concurrency, Prentice-Hall, 1989.

  46. D.L. Parnas, “Language-free mathematical methods for software design (invited paper),” in Ninth Annual Z User Workshop, Springer-Verlag, Limerick, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  47. B. Potter, J. Sinclair, and D. Till, An Introduction to Formal Specification and Z, Prentice Hall, 1991.

  48. I. Sommerville, Software Engineering, Addison-Wesley, 1989.

  49. M. Steen, H. Bowman, and J. Derrick, “Composition of LOTOS specifications,” in P. Dembinski and M. Sredniawa (Eds.), Protocol Specification, Testing and Verification, Chapman and Hall, Warsaw, Poland, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  50. M.W.A. Steen, “Consistency and composition of process specifications,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Kent at Canterbury, Canterbury, Kent, UK, 1998.

    Google Scholar 

  51. J. Woodcock and J. Davies, Using Z: Specification, Refinement, and Proof, Prentice Hall, 1996.

  52. R. Worden, “Fermenting and distilling,” in J.P. Bowen and J.A. Hall (Eds.), ZUM'94, Z User Workshop, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1994, pp. 1–6.

  53. J.-P. Wu and S. Chanson, “Translation from LOTOS and Estelle specifications to extended transition system and its verification,” in S.T. Voung (Ed.), Formal Description Techniques, II, North-Holland, Vancouver, Canada, 1989, pp. 533–549.

    Google Scholar 

  54. P. Zave and M. Jackson, “Conjunction as composition,” ACM Transactions on Software Engineering and Methodology, Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 379–411, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Computing Laboratory, University of Kent, Canterbury, CT2 7NF, UK

    H. Bowman, M.W.A. Steen, E.A. Boiten & J. Derrick

Authors
  1. H. Bowman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. M.W.A. Steen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. E.A. Boiten
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. J. Derrick
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bowman, H., Steen, M., Boiten, E. et al. A Formal Framework for Viewpoint Consistency. Formal Methods in System Design 21, 111–166 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016000201864

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016000201864

Search

Navigation